By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I think anyone who bought the 5-speed automatic was sucked in by the notion that more speeds equals better mileage. More like - more speeds equals more expensive transmission that gives same mileage - with cheaper upholstery and no passenger keyhole to pay for it.
if you do a search on my handle (PhD86), you will find that I already posted the same experience that you had with my local Toyota dealer (different state), in which I got 19-26 mpg, was told not only that there was no error code, and that the car was getting 21/33 mpg according to "the computer spot check". They never actually drove the car. My last tank got 18 mpg in mixed driving (70% city, 30% highway), it just turned 5,000 miles.
I recently compared my 92 camry on a round trip to tahoe - same speed, gas, route, everything. The 2004 got 25 mpg on the nose, the 1992 got 32 mpg.
I will contact toyota again on this soon....stay tuned.
I think there's got to be something up here. I'm thinking a pure city ride would get somewhere around 15 mpg - way under the alleged 23-24 mpg.
And the remarks about stomping the pedal don't apply with me either. I've tried such things as premium gas and oil to no effect.
for the host - how do posters contact each other privately? clicking on my name or others shows the e-mail address as "private". Any way to send/receive PMs? (private messages)
If that isn't done, the address defaults to private and no one can see it.
Would you recommend the leather seats? I live in Wisconsin, so it does get quite cold here and I'm really struggling trying to figure out if the extra cost (leather package + heated seats) is worth it over cloth seats that I'm assuming are naturally warmer, even right when getting into the car.
When you bought your car also, did you buy one on the lot or special order? The reason I ask is that almost no dealers around here seem to have XLE's or at least don't have them with options I like either. If you special ordered (or know someone who has), did you still negotiate to a fairly good deal (relative to the True Market Values you find on this site)? Thanks a bunch for your help!
Eric
I dont think PZEV should have an effect on fuel economy, and its important to note that not all 2005 4 cylinders are actually PZEV-compliant.
I'm very surprised at the low gas mileage, though. Does anyone have an 05 4 cylinder 5A that is happy with/acheiving good fuel efficiency? Our 02 hits between 26 and 28 MPG on regular basis, in a mix of city/highway.
~alpha
I have a '97 XLE V6 with leather and Moonroof and 90k miles. Leather is in great shape except the back pocket area of the drivers seat where it has gotten a little scuffed. :-( No fading and this car resides in sunny California.
The Moonroof does not leak and at under 45 MPH makes little if any noise. Freeway is noisier but I will not buy another car without a moonroof. The wife loves it. Even cold days she likes to put on a warm hat, turn up the heater and open the hatch!
Glendo
We bought our XLE in January 2003. The specs of the '05's have changed since then and the option package that we purchased may not be the same. In Canada, you can't get a 4 cylinder '05 XLE with leather from the factory...have to move up to the 6 cylinder. We only wanted the 4 and are very happy with the performance.
We traded the '99 Sienna on the XLE...very pleased with the deal...got a good chunk off list and also was given a very reasonable trade in allowance for the van. Our Camry came from Japan and the extra option package had several things...leather, heated power driver/passenger seats, JBL 6 disc sound system, side air bags/curtains. monochromatic dimming mirror with compass and some other stuff. There was no "special order", just a "check this box for these options as a package."
We are fans of leather seats (as long as they are heated). My wife's '97 Subaru Outback Limited has leather, and the interior still looks like new. We were thinking of trading it in this year, but it runs so well, that we are going to keep it longer. It only has 82,000 kms.(51,000 miles).
I had leather seats in a '93 Bonneville that my son in Vancouver ended up with. He sold it last year with about 250,000 km's on it and the seats still were like new.
So go with the leather if you get a chance...especially if it is from the factory. After market dealer-installed stuff can be OK too, but I have seen some less than satisfactory installations.
Good luck.
Doug
I’ve not been able to find any reports on either engine, does one have a better record than the other?
Good luck
I really need to figure out if I should get the 05 now or wait till next fall and get the 06. By waiting until next year to get a Camry, my current car will be worth even more (percentage wise) than I owe compared to now. I'm about $1500 in the black now, maybe $2000 by next year. However, that also means that I have all those months paying on a car that I don't really want anymore. I put on about 18,000 miles a year too, so I don't want to get the Camry before I really "need" it, even though I plan on keeping it forever :-)
Sorry to ramble on, I'm just trying to figure out what to do. Thanks again.
Eric
Hope this helps!
-Alex
Does anyone know if these rattles are covered beyond 12,000 miles to the 36,000 mile level, or do you have to fix noise, vibration and rattles in the first 12,000 miles?
The warranty manual is a little confusing on this issue. Any advice would be appreciated.
Eric, maybe the best thing to do is wait until September and buy a leftover 05. Just a thought.
1) Camry is not a cop magnet
2) Very reliable, will last at least 10 years
3) Inexpensive price for a near-luxury car
4) Good deal on the car - 0% APR for 3 years, I've never seen Honda offer that
5) I'm 29 years old and having a family and kids is not far off.
6) Has more safety features than my 99 Corolla - front & rear side & curtain airbags, ABS
7) For me, the car looks really elegant - Accord looks like a Buick.
If you read back a few threads on my handle (PhD86), you'll find that the poor mileage occurs on the 04's as well as the 05's (I have a late production date of june 04 on mine). It is also PZEV-compliant.
I am convinced that Camry is a better buy for its near-luxury ride, safety, reliability, durability, serviceability, and advanced features such as VSC. Camry's seats feel softer and more comfortable than Accord's, combined with a very smooth and quiet ride, make a big difference in longer trips, especially for children.
I have a '89 Camry LE with 252K miles, parked outdoors in the sun most its life, but the fabric seats and interior are still perfect, not a single tear or crack. I can still cruise safely at high speed on freeways with this old car. I am sort of trained to get maximum performance out of machineries while maintaining perfect safety!
Toyota also has a flexible production system that can produce cars with many combinations of options and prices, whereas Honda's offerings are very limited! Believe me it takes a lot of money and skills to build a flexible production system that turns out products with variability and quality. It would be great when we can all have custom-built cars at low prices in the future! Honda's limited product options and its rigid production system are not a virtue here!
The styling of the new Accord just turned me off completely. The hood is shaped like the cheap, old French Citroen 2CV; the rear end looks like an old Buick! The side has a downward slanted line that make the car look like a cheap toy! all Honda and Accura products share the same similar wedge shape that has become old and tired.
OTH, styling on the new Camry is very aggressive, yet cute, simple and elegant. My impression of the Camry, by its styling alone, is something young, fresh, happy and wholesome. A lot of young people I know in their teens and twenties like the styling of the Camry and the Celica.
The Celica's styling is a classic piece of art by itself. I would buy the 05 Celica as a fun collector's car if it had 4-wheel disc brakes and all the airbags. The new Scion TC has the disc brakes and airbags but looks horrible. I may still buy a bright red 05 Celica as a collectible.
Your future babies should love the quiet, smooth and safe ride in your Camry, and that should make their mom happy!
They state "The gauges are always illuminated, and controls are lighted at night except for the power mirror and dimmer controls..."
So that means that there is finally illuminated controls for power door locks & windows?
Can someone confirm that for me?
Braking and slalom speed continue to be an issue in empirical terms because of Toyota's poor tire choice for the basic 4 cylinder Camrys. (The drum rear brakes on the Camry LE 4 do nothing to help braking either). These are significant areas of improvement for the next gen Camry, which is only a year and a half away (can you believe it???!!).
That said, I wish CR had tested an XLE 4 or an SE 4 this time around. After all, the representative Accord they've tested is the EX 4, which gets larger tires and rear disc brakes as compared to the higher volume selling LX 4. (Conversely, perhaps CR should have thrown in an Accord LX for this test). The better tires and rear discs of the Camry SE/XLE 4s would likely have remedied the debits that Consumer Reports logs against the 4 cylinder Camry.
As a final note of interest- Check out how the price of the 2005 Camry tested by CR, which includes a sunroof, is basically the same as the Camry LE w/ABS that was tested for the Jan 1994 issue, while being over 2 seconds faster to 60, having better crashworthiness, more features, more room, etc.
Amazing how competitive the market has become. Good for us!
~alpha
~alpha
Do the '05 Camry have lighted controls for power windows & door locks?
FWIW, compared to the '05 Accord LX that I've driven for 1,700 miles:
- The Camry's softer seats were more comfortable but also less supportive. Between the two, I'd pick the Camry seats for a family sedan, the Accord seats for a sportier car.
- Engine and road isolation were noticeably better in the Camry than in my Accord. I didn't drive fast enough to compare wind noise levels.
- The difference between I4 and V6 versions seemed much less distinct in a Camry than in an Accord. The Toyota 4-cylinder seemed significantly smoother and quieter off idle than the Honda 4-cylinder (still, the Honda 4-cylinder is as smooth and quiet as you could wish for at highway cruising speeds or around 2,200rpm).
- I missed the auto-up driver's window from the Accord but liked that you could pull the interior door handle on a locked car and still open the door. On the Accord, time and again I still pull the handle and get nothing, stop to unlock the door, and then pull again to open the door on the second try. I don't know why it's like that.
- I didn't like the interior of either model Camry. The layout, the design, the instruments, the plastics used - none of it gave me a great feeling. Not that it was bad really, just not to my liking. I like the Accord interior better than just about any other car that I've ever sat in. I say that having been to several huge international car shows and sitting in over a hundred different cars in a day.
- Overall, I drove away happy with my choice in an Accord. On the other hand, I can easily see why someone would prefer the smoother, quieter Camry.
~alpha
I was 25 when I bought my brand new 98' Camry.
I bought mine for the same reasons you did, + I wanted to be one of the first people around town (my age) to have a car that was different. Everyone else had Civics, Accords, Jettas.
To give the car a different look, I bought a nice set of rims and it really changed the appearance.
I had (and still have) great compliments about my car.
You made a very wise decision in your purchase.
Have fun with it!
Actual measured mpg is consistently at 21 mpg. Mix of city and highway. The computer display shows 23 mpg which is not accurate.
Anyone knows why gas consumption is so high. All reviews and literature say mileage should be 24 mpg city and 33 mpg highway. I do not get close to those numbers.
IMHO, the Passat is overrated anyway. A co-worker of mine had the Passat as his dream car, finally got one, and it was a total lemon. Now he has an '04 Camry LE, like me. He does miss the cool blue-lit gauges of the Passat, but not much else.
I did look at the tracks of the Passat and it does appear that there would have to be more than just a little work to get it installed (if it could be done at all)
re: see what happens on a long trip...
been there, done that, several times. I typically get 26-27 mpg. got 30 mpg once, but never again. And I don't exceed 65, or stomp the accelerator, ever.
35 mpg is out of this world, in my opinion. Did you do this in multiple fillups? Is yours an automatic or a manual? What state are you in?
My theory is that the automatics get 30% less than the EPA estimates and the manuals get right around the estimated number.
As for pure city driving, my last two tanks got 16 and 15 mpg, which explains the 19-20 mpg in mixed driving.
Very disappointing. Would not have bought the car had I known this.
You may want to contact a local chiropractor and see if s/he can recommend an upholsterer to modify the seat you already have.
These mileages were recorded over several different runs. On one trip to Philadelphia and back, including some driving in the Philly suburbs, without filling the tank, I got something like 35 mpg over 500+ miles (don't have my records in front of me here).
City mileage is highly dependent on traffic conditions. Consumer Reports typically gets very low mileage in their simulated city driving test -- 16 mpg in the case of the '05 Camry tested for the Feb. 2005 issue. (Their overall mileage for this car was 24 mpg, and highway mileage was 34 mpg.)
Even if you don't, the driver seat track has a sensor that controls the 2-stage deployment of the driver frontal airbag.
I wouldn't take the risk of removing the seat. Better a sore back than a broken one (or worse) if the airbag doesn't deploy properly, or at all.
For liability reasons, I don't think a Toyota dealer would cooperate in swapping out a seat.
I still think your best bet is an upholsterer who can alter the internal padding without removing the seat. You still don't want that person fiddling with the part of the seat where the side airbag is mounted (if so equipped).
Once again - unless you do CONSECUTIVE recording over several fill-ups, I won't believe it. I'm suspicious in that you state you recorded "over several different runs". 500 miles is possible with a tank of 18.5 gallons, I'm guessing you just about ran it dry, then underfilled the tank. I'm not being cynical here, but the 04-05 camrys shut off the fillup about 2 gallons short of full (takes that much in top-off). Done that, checked it with topping it off. you probably think you got 30+ mpg because you put in 16 gallons when you really used 18. The difference is significant (e.g., 510 miles/16 gallons is ~32 mpg, but 510/18 = ~28 mpg). You would have discovered this on your next tank.
Not a single post from anyone (with an automatic transmission) who continuously records mileage has even come close to 30 on consecutive tanks, or, for that matter, a range of 600 miles on a single tank on this car (32.4 mpg or more).
Incidentally, my last tank pulled 17 mpg.
The highest mileage I have ever recorded on this vehicle was on an early summer trip, where I got 42.36 miles per gallon.
So far, I am very pleased with the vehicle.
edmund's should check out the URL's on these characters - my guess is a link (direct or indirect) to the manufacturer.
If you don't believe me on the guzzler mileage of the camry - please go rent one first before buying it on sales talk.